Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THE main point for consideration which arises in this set of 10 writ petitions (No. 739, to 743 and 794 to 798 of 1979), is whether an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) would operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings before the Labour Court between the same parties.
(2.) THE workman in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 739 to 743 and 794 to 798 of 1979, had filed an application alongwith other workmen under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act claiming wages for the month of December, 1969, from Messrs Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (hereinafter called the Mills) and besides the Mills, its Manager and one Shri Gurdial Singh as respondent No. 3 were impleaded. That application was tried initially by Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, P.C.S., who was appointed at the Authority under the Act. Before the Authority under the Act, the defence of the Mills was that on 30th June, 1969, all the workmen had submitted a joint resignation which was duly accepted by the Mills and all the workmen were paid their dues and receipts were obtained from each one of them, with the result that with effect from 1st July, 1960 they were not the workmen of the Mills and were serving as workmen of Gurdial Singh, respondent No 3, and therefore, Gurdial Singh was responsible for payment of their dues for the month of December, 1960. The workmen disputed the stand of the Mills and asserted that they never submitted any resignation nor their dues were paid as alleged by the Mills and all this was a bogus affair and Gurdial Singh, respondent, No. 3, was none -else than an employee of the Mills and they have been wrongly shown to be in the service of Gurdial Singh, which was again a camouflage. On the contest of the parties, the following three issues were framed: 1. Whether petitioners No. 20 to 23 are employees of the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioners gave up their jobs with the respondent No. 1 and 2 from 30th June, 1969 and joined with Shri Gurdial Singh respondent No. 3. If so, what is its effect? To what amount of wages and compensation are the petitioners entitled to? Shri H.S. Ahluwalia found, by order dated 13th January, 1972 (Annexure P. 10), that the workmen had submitted their resignations which were duly accented by the Mills and the Mills had made full and final settlement with them and that the workmen were the employees of Gurdial Singh, respondent No. 3. Against the aforesaid order of the Authority, the workmen filed an appeal which came up for consideration before Shri H.L. Randev, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana who allowed the same by order, dated 4th February, 1976 (Annexure P. 11) on a technical ground and sent back the case to the Authority under the Act for re -decision of the matter after affording fresh opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the new pleas raised before the Appellate Authority. After remand, the case came up for consideration before Shri Mohinder Singh Luna, P.C.S. as Authority under the Act, who by order dated 21st May, 1976, (Annexure P. 12) decided issue No. 2 in favour of the workmen and came to the conclusion that all the workmen were in fact the employees of M/s. Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Ludhiana, and not of Gurdial Singh and that the contractorship of Gurdial Singh was a mere camouflage. On the basis of this finding, the Mills were directed to pay all the wages to the workmen for the month of December, 1969. Against the aforesaid order which was against the Mills no appeal was filed, although an appeal was competent before the District Judge and, therefore, this order became final between the parties. Since the workmen were not being allowed to join their duties and the Mills were contending that they had terminated their services with effect from 5th January, 1970, they moved the State Government for referring the dispute to Labour Court and finally the Government of Punjab in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(a), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following question with regard to 10 workmen to the Labour Court, Ludhiana: Whether the termination of the services of the workmen mentioned above is justified when the ten references came up before the Labour Court, Ludhiana, on the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the reference is invalid and incompetent as alleged in the preliminary objections of written statement? 2. Whether the workmen left service of respondent on 30th June, 1960 after receiving all their dues in full and final settlement? 3. If previous issues are not proved, whether the termination of services of she workman is justified and in order?
(3.) RELIEF . 3. By award, dated 22nd September, 1978, Annexure P -1, the Labour Court decided issue No. 1 against the Mills as the same was not pressed; issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the workmen and it was held that the workmen had not received their dues in full and final settlement and had not resigned; issue No. 3 was decided against the Mills and in favour of the workmen on the basis of the finding given under issue No. 2 and under issue No. 4, all the references were accepted and the workmen were ordered to be reinstated with full back -wages and continuity of service from the date of their termination till their reinstatement. Specific direction was also made for making payment to the workmen at the rates specified in the award. The present writ petitions have been directed at the instance of the Mills against the award of the Labour Court, Ludhiana. 4. Dewan Chetan Das, learned counsel for the Mills, has urged three points before me: (i) that the Labour Court committed an error patent on the face of the record in recording the following findings: In this case no other evidence has been led by the management and they had only relied upon on the findings given in Ex. M -38. Independent evidence regarding resignation and full and final settlement ought to have been led by the management in this Court which is completely lacking. The persons in whose presence the full and final settlement took place have not come into the witness -box and only certain copies of documents have been tendered. It was the duty of the management to prove its assertion by leading evidence but no such evidence is forth -coming and I am left with no option but to hold that the management has failed to prove this issue. (ii) that the Labour Court was in error in considering the Order, Annexure P -12, which is equal to Exhibit P.W. 5, as being final between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to decide whether the letters of resignation and acceptance thereof were genuine or bogus documents and therefore, the decision given by that Court and contained in Exhibit P -12 is not binding on the parties with the result that the Labour Court should have given independent decision on that matter; and (iii) that there was no material before the Labour Court as to at what rate the workman were entitled to the back wages barring the case of Pritam Singh, workman. In case the workman are to be granted fresh opportunity to lead evidence, then the Mills should be allowed the opportunity to show that during the period the workmen were out of service of the Mills, they were gainfully employed and to that extent deduction will have to be made from the back wages payable to them.;